Scan barcode
A review by drewsstuff
I Pose by Stella Benson
5.0
A four star story? Yes, despite it's blatant racism. Very close to five stars, too, but though this is her first novel, it's the third of hers I've read, and it's just not quite up there with the others.
Without giving too many spoilers, the story can be divided into three parts. First, typical Stella Benson London: magical, characterful and yet very real. Second, on the island: blatantly racist, she uses "nigger" to describe local people and also infers their lack of cultural sophistication, their inability to speak English properly (no mention of the English people's ability to speak the local language though) and their almost animal instinct (to crowd fearfully into a church following a natural disaster).
(To be honest, I'm not sure if this last can be labelled racist; surely it's an example of how any group of people might behave? But imho her portrayal of the local people as primitive compared to English society comes through very strongly, particularly in the comments about church, because she omits to give them many redeeming features from their own culture).
The third part, back in England, is a return to the magic, the fantasy, the delightful characterisation, and is the culmination of the non-love story between the unnamed gardener and the militant suffragette. I can't help but love all the characters in the book, especially the suffragette, the gardener and Mrs Rust. Wonderful creations. The end of the story is both very simply told and harrowing, and I did not expect anything like it.
The question of how racist the story is, is difficult. Benson was a product of her time, of the values that were inculcated into her, of her elitist and privileged education. If she was writing today, she would be offensive, and it jars very much when not only her characters but she as author propose colonialist racism (albeit I think one of a benign nature - it's still racism).
However, this argument has gone on for years. Can you take a book out of its time-frame and expect to read wonderfully now? I don't think so. We are intelligent, are we not? We should be able to accept that attitudes were different back then. Not to accept that renders us stupid. Today's hot romances would no doubt have offended previous times. Lovecraft attitudes are questionable now. Huckleberry Finn was edited so that "nigger" now reads "slave". I'm not sure that worked then, or works now. Is a slave any less of an insult? Any more? In my opinion, no.
But I do believe that a work of art should remain intact and shouldn't be tarnished by having to cowtow to the whims and prejudices of a particular generation(s), however much I agree with those whims (for the record I am - as far as my upbringing allows me (and I'm not using that as a cop-out, it's just a fact, there is probably prejudice I am not aware of even though it exists) - against prejudice in any form.
Suffice to say this book has maintained it's original wording; and with the caveat of prepare to be disturbed by the language and some of the attitudes held therein, I'd recommend this to everyone.
But perhaps read other work first. Then it may come as less of a shock.
Without giving too many spoilers, the story can be divided into three parts. First, typical Stella Benson London: magical, characterful and yet very real. Second, on the island: blatantly racist, she uses "nigger" to describe local people and also infers their lack of cultural sophistication, their inability to speak English properly (no mention of the English people's ability to speak the local language though) and their almost animal instinct (to crowd fearfully into a church following a natural disaster).
(To be honest, I'm not sure if this last can be labelled racist; surely it's an example of how any group of people might behave? But imho her portrayal of the local people as primitive compared to English society comes through very strongly, particularly in the comments about church, because she omits to give them many redeeming features from their own culture).
The third part, back in England, is a return to the magic, the fantasy, the delightful characterisation, and is the culmination of the non-love story between the unnamed gardener and the militant suffragette. I can't help but love all the characters in the book, especially the suffragette, the gardener and Mrs Rust. Wonderful creations. The end of the story is both very simply told and harrowing, and I did not expect anything like it.
The question of how racist the story is, is difficult. Benson was a product of her time, of the values that were inculcated into her, of her elitist and privileged education. If she was writing today, she would be offensive, and it jars very much when not only her characters but she as author propose colonialist racism (albeit I think one of a benign nature - it's still racism).
However, this argument has gone on for years. Can you take a book out of its time-frame and expect to read wonderfully now? I don't think so. We are intelligent, are we not? We should be able to accept that attitudes were different back then. Not to accept that renders us stupid. Today's hot romances would no doubt have offended previous times. Lovecraft attitudes are questionable now. Huckleberry Finn was edited so that "nigger" now reads "slave". I'm not sure that worked then, or works now. Is a slave any less of an insult? Any more? In my opinion, no.
But I do believe that a work of art should remain intact and shouldn't be tarnished by having to cowtow to the whims and prejudices of a particular generation(s), however much I agree with those whims (for the record I am - as far as my upbringing allows me (and I'm not using that as a cop-out, it's just a fact, there is probably prejudice I am not aware of even though it exists) - against prejudice in any form.
Suffice to say this book has maintained it's original wording; and with the caveat of prepare to be disturbed by the language and some of the attitudes held therein, I'd recommend this to everyone.
But perhaps read other work first. Then it may come as less of a shock.